Yes, definitively

Yes

Can't decide

No

Hell no

Legend

It is all in the title, personally I think it was a big mistake, I may dare to say massive.
Even sold in the grey it was creating volume for Intel fabs, incentive for power efficient GPU and also other accelerators development.
To think it was killed before the last of the Larrabee's heir wows me actually. I've also regrets when I look a product like the Nintendo switch and wonder about what would be a lowered end though portable take on Pc gaming (among other concerns).

LegendVeteranSubscriber

Their lower-power core development didn't halt. SoCs with the Goldmont Plus lineup have just recently been unveiled.

What they ceased to develop were the Atom X branding, with SoCs at 4W and below. Probably because they were selling with margins too low for their taste just to counter ARM offerings and the only interesting product they ever got out of it was the Surface 3.

Legend

Yes, only the low end Atom brand wad killed off. The CPU architecture still exists and Intel are still developing them.

The architecture went into the Atom (ultra low end), Celeron (low end), and Pentium (upper low end) brands. There was no profit potential there for them to compete with low end ARM CPUs with the Atom. That market is dominated by a race to the bottom with extremely slim margins for the CPU makers. So that was cut and focus put on Celeron and Pentium class devices. There are a lot of those devices.

Legend

Their lower-power core development didn't halt. SoCs with the Goldmont Plus lineup have just recently been unveiled.

What they ceased to develop were the Atom X branding, with SoCs at 4W and below. Probably because they were selling with margins too low for their taste just to counter ARM offerings and the only interesting product they ever got out of it was the Surface 3.

Click to expand...

Really, I have not read of significant architectural changes in years and it seems I missread some of their announcements.

Intel uses 6W at 1.1GHz / 1.5W per core while the A73 uses 4.4W at 2.45GHz / 1.1W per core. That peak perf is at 2.7GHz burst so it's probably more around 4W single core. The difference in efficiency is massive.

VeteranRegular

Intel uses 6W at 1.1GHz / 1.5W per core while the A73 uses 4.4W at 2.45GHz / 1.1W per core. That peak perf is at 2.7GHz burst so it's probably more around 4W single core. The difference in efficiency is massive.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting the A73 data? I searched on Google for a bit and did not find anything conclusive.

If you look at Goldmont-based "Apollo Lake" Pentium N4200 and Atom T5700 numbers, the top numbers belong to Android. They might be able to get into the 2100-2200 range.

Also looking at TDPs, the Silvermont-based Braswell platforms had TDP and SDP equivalent to Apollo Lake ones. Despite that, Silvermont was also available in CPUs like Atom X7 that reached 2W SDPs and went into Smartphones. It's not entirely unlikely if they decided to re-enter it, we could see TDP and SDP rating that can fit into phones. It's not worth it looking at the performance, because they will be behind.

Regular

Also looking at TDPs, the Silvermont-based Braswell platforms had TDP and SDP equivalent to Apollo Lake ones. Despite that, Silvermont was also available in CPUs like Atom X7 that reached 2W SDPs and went into Smartphones.

About Us

Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!